Cirrus

The material on this page is available to AustLit subscribers. If you are a subscriber or are from a subscribing organisation, please log in to gain full access. To explore options for subscribing to this unique teaching, research, and publishing resource for Australian culture and storytelling, please contact us or find out more.

Latest Issues

VIEW ALL ISSUES (14873164)

AbstractHistoryArchive Description

'In “Chinese Take Away” (2000), playwright, performer and co-producer Anna Yen portrays her matrilineal history by tracing her grandmother’s journey from China to Hong Kong, her mother’s from Hong Kong to Sydney and finally her own in contemporary Australia. In so doing, she exposes their suffering from rape, repeated pregnancies and slavery. Drawing on Gayatri Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988), I consider the women whose stories Yen relates in her play as subalterns. Yen moves from tracing these subalterns’ itineraries, a task Spivak assigns to the “postcolonial intellectual,” to retrieving their voices. By employing the technique of polycharacterisation, Yen opens up a performative site where these women’s stories can be passed on: she constructs their characters on stage, relates their stories and reads their written letters. As a result, their voices are not retrieved decades later by a group of male scholars, namely the ‘Subaltern Studies’ scholars whom Spivak critiques in her essay, but by a woman from the same family. I argue that dramatising these stories in one female performing body becomes an expression of resistance that destabilises the assumption of a fixed image of the Asian woman as a site of sexual appeal, and problematises Spivak’s premise of the inadequacy of the female body to send a message to a receiver. In “Chinese Take Away,” Yen retrieves and empowers her foremothers’ voices as well as resists dominant stereotypes of the Asian woman as submissive and a site of sexual attraction. Furthermore, she negotiates her identity as a playwright straddling two cultures, Asian and Australian.' (Introduction)

Publication Details of Only Known VersionEarliest 2 Known Versions of

Appears in:

y Journal of the European Association for Studies of Australia JEASA; Australia - South Asia : Contestations and Remonstrances vol. 8 no. 2 2017 14873006 2017 periodical issue Abstract
'Perhaps the most iconic figure that has come to epitomise the earliest interactions between colonial Australia and South Asia is that of the male "Afghan" cameleer. However, the catch-all term "Afghan" (or "Ghan") is a partial misnomer since the cameleers who started making their way to Australia from the mid-1860s onwards were, in addition to Afghan, from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, including Punjabi, Balochi, Kashmiri and Sindhi. Many of these men came from areas that straddle present-day north India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and, therefore, at least some of them were "from British India and were British subjects, originating from east of the Durant line that separated British India from Afghanistan" (Ganter 487). Designating this diverse group of camel-drivers collectively as "Afghans," rather than recognizing their status as British subjects where applicable, was not merely a case of sloppy record-keeping, but was also politically expedient since, as Regina Ganter points out, it "served the purpose of classifying them as Alien or ‘Asiatics' under various restrictive laws curtailing their rights to own property, land, or engage in independent business" (487). This variety of immigration reached its height in the 1880s and the political climate during the 1890s became increasingly hostile towards immigrants from Asia. Though the Chinese "bore the brunt" (Jones 11) of the growing anti-Asian sentiment which culminated in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 (or the White Australia policy), the cameleers too were inevitably affected by it and, of course, by "the invention of the modern engine" which diminished their "utility" significantly (Abdalla 39).' (Introduction)
2017
(
2017
)